ATMARAM LEDWANI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 19.07.2006 (Annexure P/4) whereby the petitioner working as Driver in Transport Department, on deputation, has been repatriated back to his parent department i.e. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (for short `the CIDC') and to allow the petitioner to continue on deputation in the transport department in pursuance of the order dated 20.10.2004 (Annexure P/2).

(2.) THE facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was selected for the post of Driver by the Divisional Selection Committee, Raipur in the services of erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Raipur vide order dated 23.03.1984. After carving out of the State of Chhattisgarh from the erstwhile state of Madhya Pradesh under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh State Reorganization Act, 2000, the services of the petitioner were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. Later on, the State Road Transport Corporation of the state of Chhattisgarh was abolished in the year 2003, however, the services of the petitioner was accommodated in CIDC. THEreafter, his services was transferred to the transport department by order dated 20.10.2004 (Annexure P/4) on deputation basis. All of a sudden, the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Raipur, repatriated back the services of the petitioner to the CIDC vide the impugned order dated 19.07.2006.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri Sao, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 and 3 submits that the petitioner was pressurizing the authorities to post him as driver in the Flying Squad, as is evident from the letter dated 28.06.2006 (Annexure R/1-1). It is further submitted that while the petitioner was posted with Flying Squad, Korba, the Incharge of the Flying Squad was highly dissatisfied with the conduct of the petitioner wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner has done such acts which resulted into loss of revenue to the transport department. The petitioner was sent on deputation to the transport department on 20.10.2004 and was repatriated back to the CIDC on 19.07.2006 on administrative grounds and on the grounds, as aforestated. Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference.